downtonabbeyfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Should we be including gossip, rumours and speculation?
Hello all! You might have noticed I've been trying to add references to the article on Series 4 and encourage others to do the same. This is because I think we - as a reference source or encyclopaedia for Downton Abbey - should try to be as accurate and factual as possible and give references whenever possible. I don't think that including speculation, rumours and gossip that surrounds the filming of the next series fits in with that role. The main problem I have with including information that comes from gossip or news websites or the actors, about the next series - is that it may be accidentally inaccurate or even deliberately misleading at times. Whilst they are giving out information about a series that hasn't aired yet we have no way of knowing how accurate that information is and I think it's therefore misleading for us to include it in our article on series 4 as if it is 100% correct. Information might be given out that is inaccurate/misleading so as to keep an important storyline or plot point a secret or keep people guessing as to what is really going to happen. This might lead to the problem of having information in articles that needs referencing or correcting once the series airs or official information is released that contradicts it. Another downside of including all this speculation about the next series is that it excludes a lot of people who might want to avoid spoilers. This is a smaller consideration in my opinion, but perhaps still something worth considering. So, I propose that when writing articles on upcoming series or characters that we simply rely on information that has been released by official sources - by itv website or press packs and not simply material from news websites or the actors. I also propose that we perhaps have a forum dedicated to speculation, gossip, latest "news" - that type of thing. That way we give people a place to discuss that type of thing to their hearts content and we aren't excluding anyone. --blue (talk) 13:03, June 20, 2013 (UTC) :The forum is a good idea, but I think "news", assuming it is factual, can be in article as long as it is in a "News" section ( News ). :Some speculation could also be allowed if it isn't a spoiler and seems to have good reasoning behind it, but only if it is in clearly labelled a "Speculation" section ( Speculation ). :All spoilers should be clearly labelled or hidden, if possible. We have several templates to use to alert users, mark potential spoilers for hiding, or hiding spoilers. See Spoilers section of Downton Abbey Wiki:Templates page. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 20 Jun 2013 12:08 PM Pacific :::Well, as I've said above I think we're better off staying away from speculation and keeping that to blogs and forums. I think this wiki would work better as a reference source and keep factual in the articles than trying to mix the two. That just leads to confusion, arguments and misleading articles. I think news can possibly have it's place if it's reporting something like "actor such and such has a part in the next series", if it's things like "actor says his character needs a new love interest in the next series" or "character ? will find love/sex/death/puppies in the new series" then I think it's misleading and inaccurate to add it. I just thought a guideline of only adding news on the new series that comes from official sources will miss out all that trouble, and wouldn't lead to us missing out on adding any substantial new information. --blue (talk) 20:43, June 20, 2013 (UTC) ::::I've seen speculation sections work in other wikis without confusing the users, but I'm fine with it not being allowed, if the community agrees at some level. ::::I can make a new forum at any time. We could call it "Gossip, rumours, and speculation" unless a better name comes to mind. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 20 Jun 2013 2:40 PM Pacific ::::I would like to suggest and edit; instead of adding all the needed (which makes the page look horrible] just add a "certain references need more reference links to be valid; if you have one, please add it" to the page instead. It makes the same point; references and citations are needed and makes the page look better. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:16, June 22, 2013 (UTC) ::::::The citation needed notes need to be next to the specific information they're refering to. Otherwise people have no idea what the unfounded piece of information is. It's there to tell people that a piece of information has been added that might not have good firm basis in fact. ::::::If you don't like them then there is a very very very simple way to avoid having the "horrible" citation needed signs on the page. I just can't quite remember what it is . . . hmm, I'll keep thinking, I'm sure it'll come back to me . . . blue (talk) 00:23, June 22, 2013 (UTC)